First auto focus lens?

[scott_verge]

Hello, I just picked up a Z-1p, my first auto anything camera, quite

the step up from the K1000 I have used for the past couple years.

 

I just got the body and have no auto focus lenes.

 

My lens consist of.

 

K Soligor 28mm f2.8

 

K SMC pentax-m 50mm f2

 

K/A Vivitar 80-200mm F4

 

And to supplement those,

 

A sakar 1.7 AF teleconverter

 

And reversing ring

 

Currently my focus (if you can call it that) is family shots, Macro,

landscape and I would like to get into some wildlife.

 

So if I was to get an auto focus lens what should it be?

 

I was thinking a 35-80 or something for family and get together shots

but I'm afraid of it making me lazy.

 

If I was to get an autofocus prime what would I get? Right now I'm

used to focusing manually but I wouldn't mind auto, I'm also not about

to just start replacing everything I have for auto versions.

 

Have many people here used the Pentax F 1.7 AF teleconvter? The one

that autofocuses manual lenes?

[stemked]

I'm between classes so I'll just note the last part of your question.

 

I use the 1.7X autofocus teleconvertor and I would say it is a very impressive little device. Supposedly it is only useful for fast lenses like f2.8 or faster but it works very well with my 200mm f4 A macro. It also focuses fairly fast, it's no prime mind you, but I have been surprised how well and fast it works. It is also a really excellent teleconvertor, not one of those cheapies, but naturally it will, like any TC, be not as sharp as your prime alone.

 

Gotta run, but if no one answers your first questions I'll try and answer a few others.

[Jochen_S]

35-80 or whatever is a good choice in my opinion. I have only a old SFXn as AF body, but I wouldn't dare to get a telezoom for it, the AF might seem boring slow, but it is quite nice with the standart zoom. What's bad about being a bit lazy? If you want to loose weight via photography you should carry at least a Deardorff on the mountains.

Don't know which prime to suggest; my favorite is a 90mm Tamron, but I ve heard AF would be no good at macro photography.

[scott_verge]

I'm not looking for something to lighten up my kit, I don't mind lugging a bit of weight around.

 

I'm just wondering what my next lens should be if it was auto focus, now I want to check out the pentax AF tele converter but I can't find one anywhere.

 

Maybe I'll just get an auto 50mm Or just get a 200 or 300mm full auto for action and wildlife boy thats going to be expensive though.

[stemked]

Scott,

 

It really depends on what you are looking for. For example if you really want to do portraits the 85mm f1.4 FA is an excellent lens to look at, but only if you have deep pockets.

 

I have really been impressed with the new 28-105 FA 3.2-4.5. It gets confusing becaue there are three versions of this lens. The original 28-105 (a straight f4 I think) was/is a fantastic lens. It even has powerzoom a feature your PZ-1 CAN use (not that I know why one wants to use it). This lens, although reported as being 'the best in it's class' is heavy. As the PZ-1 is a heavy camera body though it should be well balanced. The new one is very light. Version 2 is actually a Tamron lens with a Pentax cover. I don't know anything about this lens.

 

I have the A version of the 35-80. It certainly is a 'decent' optic, but not steller. It's strengths to me are the 49mm filters and that it is feather light. I would give a much higher recommendadtion for the 28-70 FA f4 but it has some problems with thick filters (like polarizers) that unfortunately make this lens a problem.

 

If you want to do some nature work then it is hard to beat a 100 F or FA f2.8 macro. Heavy, but again well balanced with that body. Doubles as a great portrait lens too.

 

If you want a longer lens, presumably for nature, I personally really love the 300mm f4.5 F (not FA) lens (F has a removable tripod mount).

 

I guess you really need to let us know what kind of photography you want to move into.

[dougmiles]

Why not consider one of the Limiteds? Say, the 43mm f/1.9 or 77mm f/1.8 as a significant step up from your existing glass. Small, light, AF, and yet exquisite in construction and optical quality.

[scott_verge]

Ok I definatly DON'T have deep pockets :)

 

But I also don't mind saving up or looking for a used lens. As long as the lens is worth it and will be used enough to justify the cost.

 

Thats what worries me about a long wildlife lens, I would like to take some cool shots of animals but what if I buy it and never see much to get shots off. Course I guess if I bought used the resale value would probly be pretty good.

 

Like I said, my interests are macro, landscape, wildlife and family stuff.

 

I guess really I'm covered for everything except the wildlife (unless I use my 70-200 at 200 with the 1.7 tele but the quality would suffer I would imagine)

 

Maybe I just need to get newer auto focus versions of my current lens and save up for a nice long lens like the 300mm f4.5 F Douglas Stemke mentions.

 

I never looked at the limiteds cause I figured they would be really expensive, I never noticed that they were weird non standard sizes.

[stemked]

Scott,

 

If you want a pretty good long lens that is inexpensive you might want to look into Sigma's 400mm f5.6 lens. There are several versions of this lens including an autofocus version. It is much less expensive than the autofocus Pentax equilivent and a good optic.

[george2]

As your first AF lens I would suggest the constant aperture FA 28-70/4 lens. It is one of the best consumer lenses in the market.

 

And if you don't have deep pockets, you better wait before you buy a mediocre longer tele :-;